‘Capture strategies’ are harming efforts to save our planet warns scientists

(Press-News.org) Peer-reviewed, literature review

Scientists warn that powerful industries are quietly shaping laws, research and public messaging in ways that delay environmental and health action

Study brings together real-world examples - from fossil fuel-funded museums to biased science conferences - to expose how ‘capture strategies’ work

The study calls for stronger conflict of interest rules and greater transparency in funding

For over 80 years, researchers have documented how powerful industries can exert influence over the very institutions meant to regulate them - a phenomenon known as ‘corporate capture’.

From oil spills to pharmaceutical scandals, history has shown how these close relationships between corporations and decision-makers can have serious, sometimes devastating, consequences for both human and environmental health.

International scientists warn that unless kept in check, ‘corporate capture’ will play an instrumental role in obstructing efforts to address the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and chemical pollution.

A new study, led by Professor Alex Ford from the University of Portsmouth, highlights how a wide range of industries use strategic influence to shape decisions affecting people and the planet, from environmental laws being watered down, harmful products left on the market, or vital research suppressed to protect profits. 

Published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, the research brings together perspectives and expertise from members of the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP), of which Professor Ford is the first UK academic to serve on the Board. 

Using existing evidence from across sectors - such as tobacco, chemicals, fossil fuels, food, pharmaceuticals, and the media - they have created a tactics playbook to help safeguard against negative influence. 

Real-world examples include instances where regulatory agencies have become reliant on industry data, research institutions avoid publishing critical findings to protect funding, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or museums accept sponsorships that may shape their messaging.

Professor Ford from the University of Portsmouth’s School of the Environment and Life Sciences and Institute of Marine Sciences, has been investigating the impact of the chemicals on marine environments for several years.

“There’s growing evidence that those tasked with protecting people and the planet can become entangled - sometimes unknowingly - in a web of influence, where funding, data and decision-making are carefully steered by vested interests,” said Professor Ford. “These ‘capture strategies’ don’t always look like outright corruption. They can be subtle, systemic, and deeply embedded, making them all the more important to recognise and call out.” 

First studied in the 1940s, ‘corporate capture’ sees regulators, policymakers, and even scientists swayed to prioritise private interests over public good. 

This latest paper proposes that ‘capture strategies’ should be considered more broadly, beyond just regulatory bodies, to include universities, NGOs, cultural institutions and even intergovernmental panels. 

It describes how academic institutions have accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry - giving rise to the term “Frackademia” - and how some museums have faced criticism for partnering with oil companies. 

Other examples include pesticide companies sponsoring scientific conferences, historical financial backing from the tobacco industry in Hollywood films, and social media platforms amplifying climate change denial and anti-science misinformation.

While the paper focuses on problematic cases of corporate influence, the authors acknowledge that not all relationships between industry and institutions are harmful. 

“In fact, the private sector has played an important role in developing innovative technologies and supporting environmental initiatives,” explained co-author Dr Maria Clara Starling. “Industry voices have a place in public debate, but that involvement must be transparent, accountable, and free from conflicts of interest that undermine public and environmental wellbeing.”

IPCP board members are calling for stronger conflict of interest policies, greater transparency in funding, and improved governance within institutions. It also recommends that university students are trained on disinformation and influence tactics, particularly within the environmental sciences.

This is not the first time Professor Ford has explored the dynamic between science, influence and environmental policy. Earlier this year, he co-authored a paper in Nature Water examining how England’s water industry uses communication tactics to shift attention away from sewage pollution. 

Professor Ford added: “The idea isn’t to vilify industry - many companies are doing important work in sustainability. It’s about increasing awareness of how some industries operate to slow down positive progress.  

“Commercial interests don’t always align with public or planetary health, and we need the tools to understand and navigate that dynamic.”

END